Contemplating the Meaning of the 2nd Amendment

[jsimmons]

As most of you probably know, the framers were highly reluctant to support the idea of a standing army due to the government's ability to wield said army in any way that was deemed to fulfill the government's purpose, or the possibility that the military would attempt a takeover of its own.

I think the 2nd Amendment was put in place as a compromise toward that idea. The first part of the 2nd Amendment clearly illustrates that they recognize the necessity of a standing army ("a well regulated militia") to provide for defense from foreign aggression:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State..."

But then they followed that idea up with this:

"...the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

In other words, the right of the people to keep and bear arms was put in place in order to resist/put down an out-of-control federal government that used the military as a vehicle for oppression of said citizens, or worse, a military that attempted to take over the government by force.

The 2nd Amendment really has nothing to do with defending one's family/property, but instead, is about defending the principles set forth in the Constitution because a standing army was not to be trusted.

Just thinking out loud...

[alduane]

Keep in mind that the "Framers" were not a cohesive body working together to write a Constitution. They had varying opinions and struggled over those. The Bill of Rights was added later by men who thought it necessary to protect certain rights. Many at the time thought these rights were obvious and spelling them out was unnecessary.

[Lowjiber]

jsimmons...I must comment that I've never thought of it that way. You make a brilliant observation that has escaped me for years.

Thank you!

[JimPage]

Reading the Federalist Papers and also the Anti Federalist Papers is instructive. I believe all the purposes for the 2nd Amendment that all of us cite are brought up. The Amendment is not so limited as some people think. One phrase can mean several things and did mean several things if you really look at what the founders thought and said at the time. It is all inclusive.

[jsimmons]

I think the ability to protect one's self, family, and property goes hand in hand with the right to keep and bear, but I think the original intent was to protect the Constitution from those who would destroy it, namely the military and/or the government that weilds it to un-constititional ends.

[fudo]

As most of you probably know, the framers were highly reluctant to support the idea of a standing army due to the government's ability to wield said army in any way that was deemed to fulfill the government's purpose, or the possibility that the military would attempt a takeover of its own.

I think the 2nd Amendment was put in place as a compromise toward that idea. The first part of the 2nd Amendment clearly illustrates that they recognize the necessity of a standing army ("a well regulated militia") to provide for defense from foreign aggression:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State..."

But then they followed that idea up with this:

"...the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

In other words, the right of the people to keep and bear arms was put in place in order to resist/put down an out-of-control federal government that used the military as a vehicle for oppression of said citizens, or worse, a military that attempted to take over the government by force.

The 2nd Amendment really has nothing to do with defending one's family/property, but instead, is about defending the principles set forth in the Constitution because a standing army was not to be trusted.

Just thinking out loud...

You have it exactly right. The right to carry personal weapons for protection from common criminals was so obvious, it hardly came up in discussion.

[dcselby1]

As most of you probably know, the framers were highly reluctant to support the idea of a standing army due to the government's ability to wield said army in any way that was deemed to fulfill the government's purpose, or the possibility that the military would attempt a takeover of its own.

I think the 2nd Amendment was put in place as a compromise toward that idea. The first part of the 2nd Amendment clearly illustrates that they recognize the necessity of a standing army ("a well regulated militia") to provide for defense from foreign aggression:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State..."

But then they followed that idea up with this:

"...the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

In other words, the right of the people to keep and bear arms was put in place in order to resist/put down an out-of-control federal government that used the military as a vehicle for oppression of said citizens, or worse, a military that attempted to take over the government by force.

The 2nd Amendment really has nothing to do with defending one's family/property, but instead, is about defending the principles set forth in the Constitution because a standing army was not to be trusted.

Just thinking out loud...

I think you pretty much nailed it JavaScript, but I believe Jefferson also believed strongly in being able to protect yourself and, by extension, your family. Great Post.
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Thomas Jefferson

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants ... for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson

[FN1910]

@jsimmons - I am surprised that you have not already been thoroughly roasted and put out to dry for that interpretation of 2A. I am also surprised that someone else feels that 2A is meant that way. One of the often quoted lines I see about the original meaning of 2A is Jefferson's proposal to the Virginia Constitution "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms". However usually left out is that after thinking about that proposal he changed it to "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands or tenements". So I don't think that even Jefferson was encouraging the carry of arms by everyone everywhere they went with no restrictions. I think your OP is very good and also that the thought of carry for self defense was such a given to the framers that they did not even consider it.

[alduane]

The concept of keeping and bearing arms is interesting in the light of concealed carry. I'm not going to waste space with sources but from my understanding, concealed carry was banned not as an infringement on keeping and bearing arms but because of a general thought that only bandits and lowlifes carried a "hidden gun." A gentleman either carried openly so that everyone knew he was armed or not at all. Real men settled their affairs with "natures weapons" and not by pulling a gun out from under his coat. Even our concealed carry laws mirror that in the sense that if you are involved in "mutual combat" you are not justified in using deadly force if things aren't going your way in the fight. Don't misunderstand, I believe firmly in concealed carry and would much rather no one ever knew I was armed, but the issue of "keeping and bearing arms" has many facets.

[B2Tall]

The 2nd Amendment really has nothing to do with defending one's family/property, but instead, is about defending the principles set forth in the Constitution because a standing army was not to be trusted.

I agree with much of your assessment but it goes a bit further than that.

A large standing army was simply too expensive for our young nation to maintain. Our small army was expected to defend the capitol. The citizen militia was expected to defend the rest of the country against invaders (foreign and domestic). This was a time when states feared other states - NY, PA, and VA pretty much scared their neighbors to death. For quite a while the smaller states were worried that the larger, more powerful states would invade, so much so that there were back-room alliances between the smaller states in case of aggression by one of the "bullies".

The likelyhood of some sort of military coup in this country is incredibly remote, ditto for the president using the military to become a dictator as some on this site seem to think (hey....whatever gets ya out of bed in the morning....). The chains of command are simply too long and broad for that to be anything but the stuff of far-fetched novels, to say nothing of the number of military personnel who would simply refuse to carry out such orders. This isn't North Korea or Stalinist Russia. Large portions of the militaries of Mideast dictatorships refused to obey orders last year and even rebelled against their respective leaders, and I'm confident that our guys are even more free-thinking than those guys.

Of course there are some who just like fantasizing about picking up their rifle a la the colonial militia and going out and destroying a rogue armored cav regiment. Good luck with that.